It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

page: 11
70
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 

BHO can change his mind that the Second Amendment does, in fact, confer an individual (vis a vis "collective")...afterall he is a politician. BUT the SCOTUS does not have that much leeway. So while they will say that you have a "right" to K&B Arms it will be "Well Regulated" (even tho that language referred to regular like a clock instead of bureacratic regulations).




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


Yes, here we are. Let's be prepared though, stay calm and keep our heads about us. We don't know exactly what is going to happen or how. Let's not produce panic either, as that won't be good for anyone.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 

BHO can change his mind that the Second Amendment does, in fact, confer an individual (vis a vis "collective")...afterall he is a politician. BUT the SCOTUS does not have that much leeway. So while they will say that you have a "right" to K&B Arms it will be "Well Regulated" (even tho that language referred to regular like a clock instead of bureacratic regulations).


The issue I see it as, however, is there is nothing in black and white in the 2nd that stipulates what the definition of Arms is, therefore if the supreme court were to reverse their decision on firearms being included it could easily do so without harming the constitution and enforcing regulations on what armaments are legally viable!? Or have I missed the point of your response?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Screwed

Originally posted by DelMar
reply to post by Screwed
 


I don't agree at all with handling the "gun issue" through an executive order but I think you are way out in left field with your reaction to this. You're speculating what they are going to do and panicking about. There is truly nothing any of us can do against an EO, we will have to wait and see what happens.

There's no need to post like the US is falling into civil war over the wording Biden used in his presser.



Some people just aren't going to "get it" until it is WAAAAAY too late!
If you honestly STILL do not CLEARLY see what is happening then it isn't my job to show you.
You'll see it soon enough, after it is much too late.


It was too late, once TSA was put in place in our airports for their molestation pat downs. It was too late when no one did anything about that then.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spaceinvaders
 





Everybody needs to chill out. Executive orders aren't inherently tyrannical


Yah or at least till they deliberately interfere directly with our 2nd Amendment rights. As I have said, this is only the beginning, as what they have in store for us, the taking of guns is only to keep us from resisting their evil plans.


They're not taking your guns, cut the paranoia. Obama wants to better regulate guns, not take them away. Do you have any proof of these "evil plans"? Of course not, you regurgitate what you hear Alex jones say...



Really they don't want them all?

Meet Dianne Feinstein the Senator from California that is introducing a bill for gun control later this month.



You see they want ALL of them - she just couldn't get the votes she needed in 1995.

So don't give me this sh!t about not wanting to take all the guns.

THEY SAY THEY WANT ALL THE GUNS!!!

Or what about just removing your right because they put you on a list - no judge no jury



Perhaps their brainwashing techniques are working on you? 3:00 mark ...

This is Eric Holder the Attorney General of the US. The one in charge during Fast and Furious where the BATF gives guns to Mexican drug lords so that they can later blame the 2nd Amendment on gun violence in Mexico. The same Eric Holder that is meeting with Biden and Obama about what new gun regulations they want to shove down our throats ...



Do you think I can really believe this guy ...



Maybe he means single shot shotguns, revolvers and bolt rifles, oh and because hes extra nice he will let you keep those flintlocks too



edit on 10-1-2013 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 

I guess that the definition of firearms from the musket forward is subject to debate but we all know what firearms are (handguns, rifles and shotguns) and only fully automatic (or select fire) firearms or short barrel rifles and shotguns and "destructive devices" (dont get me started with the DD shotguns) should be "regulated". Firearm: any weapon that can "fire" a projectile from the combustion of a contained charge and be carried in one's "arms". That should cover it....any questions?

edit on 10-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


SO, no evidence on crime stats that you touted?
Sure sure then, sure sure.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


And you are welcome to stay out of American, as it seems you are not needed not wanted here.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Indeed, but Swords, Knives, Crossbows etc are still considered Arms. Therefore a reversal of policy and a full ban on firearms would not necessarily be an infringement of the 2nd. It's semantics I know, but what isn't in law.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno


No other country is like you America. You are a bunch of Paranoid gun owners who (in there minds) think they are under constant attack...........lord knows form what?




I am not fearful or paranoid.
I am armed for just about any situation.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Yes, very proud, as we have the protection of the 2nd Amendment to purchase said firearms.

How are those guaranteed rights you have??
Oh, that's right. You are a subject of the Crown. No guaranteed rights.

When the next round of occupation from an outside force comes around, I guess that America will be there to save your butt again.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
If the idiot who killed all those people in Sandy Hook had a knife, or a sharp stick, or a rock, or a hammer instead of a gun we'd all be discussing the deplorable state of the mental health services in America.

But we're focusing on the weapon the killer used instead of the killer.

Agenda?

What about a Bomb?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DelMar
 


Oh, I get it. Master of Semantics is here.


Look to his history and what his Admin/Cabinet officials are saying. Along with the morons in Congress and the Senate.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Can anyone give me a reason why "I" should have a gun.

I would like you to forward me reasons.

I'll start.....

1. I don't, I have always used my fists when threatned and won.
2.


No, as you would likely just hurt yourself or someone else.

Stick with butter knives and safety scissors.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
If the idiot who killed all those people in Sandy Hook had a knife, or a sharp stick, or a rock, or a hammer instead of a gun we'd all be discussing the deplorable state of the mental health services in America.

But we're focusing on the weapon the killer used instead of the killer.

Agenda?


you're getting warmer...

(so close!)

:-)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


Oh, the background does speak volumes of what the true intentions are.
Just another troll on ATS, either doing it possible for research on a paper, or to document reactions to actions, to further his/her crap theories.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You do realise that Britain has a Bill of Rights (That your own countries one was based on) that curtailed the power of the monarchy to a point where it has become a Constitutional (Ceremonial) Monarchy?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes.
The Gist of it...

All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia.

It's the Law, want to bet most members of congress Don't know the law.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 

The arms of the militia at the time of the Bill of Rights (1789) were the rifled, muzzle loading long gun (musket rifle) altho bayonets (long knives mounted on rifles) and swords (carried by the cavalry) were lesser arms of the day. The term "Militia" implies military or military derived weaponry (but has to be capable of being carried by a soldier so no bunker busters).



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 


Arms encompass all of those items listed.
It is supposed to match the arms of the military.




top topics



 
70
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join